Airport Full-body Scanners - Friend or foe?

As the travel season nears, I can't but wonder about the security lines at the airport I will be encountering. Will I get stuck in the line with the full body scanner or will I get away with the good old fashion metal detector? Whether it
be in the hospital or at the airport, I will be not too far away from a full-body scanner. This time, the tables will be turned: I won't be the one looking at the images. I will now be one being scanned and receiving the radiation dose.

Is there any harm or adverse effects to one as an individual? There is no evidence currently out there that indicates that these scanning technologies presents any significant effects biologically to an individual. The types of scanning systems make use of "millimeter wave technology" or "backscatter x-rays" which deliver extremely weak levels of radiation per scan. According to the American College of Radiology (ACR), for example, "backscatter technology" delivers radiation equivalent to "flying inside an aircraft for two minutes at 30,000 feet." Based on calculations from the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP), the ACR states that "a traveler would require more than 1,000 scans in a year to reach the effective dose equal to one standard chest x-ray." Does this reassure me? Quite frankly, yes - this type of technology is very safe and low in radiation dose but nonetheless I do realize I am getting one more dose of radiation than necessary. Also if you may be wondering if this type of scan is just too much especially if you have had more than your fair share of radiation already in the form of prior radiation therapy or multiple prior x-rays or CT scans. Rest assured, a scan at the airport will expose you to a negligible dose and will not harm you.

Are there any long-term harm or public health concerns? Over time, the question remains -- we will be exposing large populations to these minimal dose of x-rays. Over time, as a population, the overall dose will add up. No one knows what the true long-term effect will be. More research needs to be performed in order to fully investigate the impact, if any, that this technology will have on large populations.

Are there any resources where I can learn more about radiation dose and x-rays? The ACR encourages those interested in learning more regarding radiation associated with imaging and radiation oncology procedures as well as radiation naturally occurring in the Earth's atmosphere to visit www.radiologyinfo.org. Again, there is currenlty no evidence that the scanning technologies that the airports are using would present significant biological effects for passengers screened.

My advice and final thought. As a citizen of this country and of the world, I am just wondering will scanning everyone even make a dent in our fight against terrorism? I sure hope that the powers that be are working on more sustainable and better solutions to fight terrorism and prevent someone from even thinking about doing harm on our airlines, rather than try to catch a needle in a haystack using full-body scanning to detect individuals with weapons or explosive materials.

Finally, as a physician, I am not worried about the radiation dose from these airport scanners. Travel safe and enjoy the holidays with your loved ones!

My concern, as a breast cancer survivor, is the embarrassment caused by possibly having to remove my bra prosthetics. (I have two..bilateral mastectomies)

I read a horrifying recent news article about breast cancer survivors having their prosthetics detected by the scanners, and then the women are subjected to searching inside their bra. One woman was told to take her prosthetic out and place it in the small bin used to hold watches and other jewelry, in full view of other passengers.

Of course we all want to be safe. But at some point, where will this end? Will we all have to fly wearing paper gowns and slippers, issued at the airport? Will we be safe, then? What about body cavity searches? Will they be needed if terrorists decide that body cavities would be the perfect hiding place?

YES--irreparable psychological damage! the other day the flight attendant who had to remove her breast prosthesis and be groped.

Today, the person who wet their pants right there in public. How humiliating.

I do not want to subject my developmentally delayed and multiply disabled child to anything traumatizing or to more raqdiation than is MEDICALLY necessary.

This is beyond necessary, medically and psychologically invasive, an invasion of privacy and constitutional rights.

When I was a child I thought it was the greatest fun to go up the street and stick my feet under the shoe store exrays. they had a standing machine in front of every shoe store. all you did was stand on it and look through the glass at your shoes. You would see your feet,toes, bones right through your shoes. As a child, I could not quite figure out how anyone could have invented such a marvelous fun machine. YEARS later, they learned of radiation and outlawed them!

Then there was the Nevada Desert, Hiroshima, etc.

GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM. GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM.
--RONALD REAGAN

With respects, there is no scientific evidence these scans do not cause damage to the human body. Furthermore,m the problem is not a single scan. There is a cumulative effect. Flight crews have been subjected to as many as six scans per day. The scans involve x-ray radiation, which always causes some degree of tissue damage. Exposure to such radiation involves risk-benefit. There is no benefit to the passenger. These scanners have been promoted by a former official of the Administration who has a financial stake in the company. Thermal imaging accomplishes the same objective without any risk whatsoever. But a former administration official is not selling thermal imaging devices. He is selling x-ray machines. I find your reassurance that "these scans have no effect on your health" to be a rather foolish statement. And ny the way, the manufacturer of the units is also providing the information on the radiation doses. Forty years ago I was involved in photographing the interior hulls of T-54 tanks after they were pentrated by uranium depleted ammunition. At the time I received great assurance from the top physician in charge of the project there was "no danger whatsoever". It reminds me somewhat of the character Dr. Pangloss in Voltaires novels. I will agree that the probability of cellular damage is very small. But it does exist. And is very real. In hospitals x-ray generating equipment is subjeected to periodic evaluation because over time the dose produced by the machine may increase. A screening machine that produces one level of radiation may in fact produce several times that amount through malfunction. The answer to terrorism is simple. These are not criminal matters. They are acts of war. There must be no priviliged sanctuary for terrorists. And the punishment for such acts must be swift and sure. Through military tribunals and not the civilian criminal justice system. Our administration, in an act that can only be regarded as insanity, recently assured the aquital of a known terrorist who killed 254 people because of a technicality that prevented the person who sold him the explosives from testifying. In the final analysis, without going into scenarios, the intense screening of the passengers does nothing whatsoever to prevent the downing of an airliner by someone determined to sacrifice his life. For a short period in my life I used to drive airplanes for a living. I know of what I speak. And what are we going to do. Extend these unconstitutional humiliating searches to trains, buses or to someone walking on the sidewalk, as the New York City Police have done during New Years?+

If as I heard on the news today that many of the explosive liquids can be carried in cartridges and pen fillers will we be faced with more invasive body cavity searches .?I would love one of them to come out and tell us why we wont go the way of Israel with much success..

Had the flight attendant been scanned she wouldn't have had to go through the pat down. It's not a constitutional right to fly, there are other modes of transportation. I don't want a bombed plane crashing into my home because some people feel humiliated and are only concerned about themselves being humiliated.

No doubt there will be people opting out of body scanning due to radiation concerns who return from their vacations with a deep, dark suntan. Much of the issue with this is based more on emotional reasoning than anything else and has to do with the tendency of people to magnify risks in which 1. they don't have control and 2. the effects aren't immediately apparent. Of course, the fact that the government is involved only magnifies this further. People have an irrational fear of pesticide residues for similar reasons.

The one aspect of this that I find rather silly are when people equate this type of imaging to pornography and have concerns about their images getting posted on the Internet. The images just seem highly clinical and sterile to me and I can't imagine anyone finding anything like that even remotely titillating when there are much better alternatives out there for that sort of thing. Maybe if Americans weren't taught to feel shame about their naked bodies there wouldn't be so much opposition. The medical prosthetic issue however seems like a legitimate concern and I can understand why anyone in that situation would not want to be handled by someone whose resume includes Security Guard and Correctional Officer.

To those people commenting who equate this outrage of these scanners and pat downs to people being irrational about it, why don't you use some logic yourselves. What about women who have been sexually raped or assaulted in the past and can't bear the thought of a stranger touching them all over their body? What about people who have received alot of radiation either through cancer treatment, numerous CT scans, etc.? What are you going to say to those people?

Americans taught to feel shame about their naked bodies? What an idiotic statment to make to the commentator JOGGEN!!! That has nothing to do with it!! This is nothing more than pure and simple harrassment on the part of the government. Maybe you like strangers who work for the government touching you all over but I for one don't. I find it a huge violation of my rights as an American citizen and a taxpayer. And some of these TSA agents? They are not exactly the nicest or friendliest bunch. They always look pissed off and seem almost angry. I sure don't need them feeling me up. I despise what this government has become and represents. It sure doesn't represent the citizens of this country anymore. But it will kiss everyone else's backside from every other country just to be politically corrent.

Total radiation exposure:
Quite simply what one needs is cheap wearable digital radiation monitors
that every concerned person can wear all the time to find what they are
being exposed to in daily life, in hospital visits, in travel, in sun bathing,
using high tech devices (mobile phones, microwave ovens, computers,
economy light bulbs, etc etc...)

I am more concerned about the EROSION TO OUR PRIVACY...
As a Sexual Abuse survivor, both the scan and the new pat down would trigger me.
I had a patdown last Marc instead of the scan. It was not bad, but, the new patdown, with hands in pants, I would have issues.

Flush out the potential terrorists :
Perhaps, one day, brain scanning techniques will
perfect lie detection and even be able to identify
other emotions -- fear, hatred, anger, zeal, etc
Putting public safety ahead of individual freedoms
has a long history in health : leprosy, TB, disease
carriers, compulsory vaccinations, etc
Unfortunately governments are dominated by lawyers
because they have had long professional training
in demagoguy and in proving black is white.
When our laws allow us to restrict the mentally ill
such as terrorists we may be safer. We may need
to restrict their access to mass media like the internet.
Methuselah

All this is much ado about a small thing, mostly by people who travel rarely. As a business traveller, I travel every week and routinely delayed up in the sky while we are circling for landing. The radiation level from a scanner is equivalent to 2 min of flying at 30000 ft. This debate about radiation will seem like a drop in a bucket, when with every flight we are anyways going to be exposed to 20 to 100 times the amount.

With regards to the sensitivities of people in special circumstances, yes, I agree - there needs to be a private, sensitive way of handling the pat downs.

A teacher on the news this morning had a private pat down he is a bladder cancer patient and he was wearing a bag the TSA worker would not listen when he tried to tell him to be careful because there could be a break in the bag causing a 'problem' the worker squeezed the bag so hard it burst showering urine over the poor humiliated teacher's pants and shirt, no apology, the teacher had to board in his wet urine soaked pants without his catheter bag .....He said the TSA worker didnt know what he meant and was absolutly untrained for these circumstances .Sensitive...... I doubt they even know the word...Again I ask why dont we copy the Israeli's or is it too sensitive to profile Islamic radicals .

by ChicagoDoc
How does anyone, whether a Radiology specialist, or not know about the effects of any procedure without proper studies.
To say that no study has indicated that there have been side effects from these scanners is probably true since radiation effects take years, if not decades to have effects; proper studies must take years and must go through the proper channels for them to be accepted by the mainstream medical or scientific community. To claim differently, in my opinion is irresponsable and doing the public a disservice by using one's position improperly as rote for an uninformed public who will follow anyone in a position of importance. I'm sure that, if a drug were to go through regulations from the FDA that it would be summarily rejected for lack of acceptable scientific evidence of lack of dangers.
No one would even spend time and money to make such studies anyway since the government just wants to take advantage of the public's ignorance and apathy to submit them to yet another imposition and withdrawal of their freedom of life liberty and freedom of happiness, simply for the convenience of the gov't's agency, to aggrandize some hotshot in a position of political power who wants to grandstand their lembrained idea.
Everyone knows that the effects of every little bit of radiation (even today) is cummulative and demographically sensitive. We already have too much exposure to radiation which is the main cause of genetic mutations. Someone already exposed to radiation is more apt to develop cancer, degenerative diseases and neurological impairment is more sensitive to it and I'm sure no is willing to take responsabilty for any harm that will occur to them down the road.
Personally, if Senators, U.S. Representatives and Administrative wonderkinds at the Airlines, the FAA or Homeland Security put it in writing that they will personally take responsability to donate out of their own pockets, in a fund for the medical costs imposed down the line and compense me for the mental anguish to me and my family and community and for the public in general, then I will consider it. That's not going to happen. They will simply look at you as if you can't be serious.
In addition, what effect would such radiation have on my body prostheses: my cardiac valves, my knee replacements, my dental fillings? Under those circumstances how effective would these scans be anyway since these conditions would lead to impenetrable obstacles to the radiation's imaging? So what are the advantages versus the dangers of the scans? How will the radiation increase my age related tendency to develop cataracts and macula degeneration, rendering me blind? How will they hasten the onset of Alheimer's or Cardiovascular disease or of Amyloidosis in general? How will that all affect my ability to support my family down the line when I succumb to these infirmities?
From Dr.Choy's perspective as a young MD, he, like all younger individuals, thinks he is (close to) immortal; when he starts to develop age-related debilities and limitations and has less financial resources to support any infirmities he will not be so blase about the matter.

Margy, that's terrible what happened to that teacher! Also the lady who had to remove her breast prosthesis. I agree wholeheartedly that they need to seriously look at training these TSA workers better on not only medical issues some people may have but also to be more sensitive and respectful to each person. Everyone should be treated with dignity, not as if they're a piece of meat or something. I truly hope they will address these issues with their workers.

As a cochlear implant wearer (a hearing device which is part worn inside the skull and is made of metal) I am forbidden to have an MRI scan but how about these air port body scanners, do they represent any danger to the likes of me

As I read through these comments it’s become crystal clear to me that we all are sacred of what we understand and of what we don’t understand!
Stop living in fear, make no mistake; none of us will live forever!
If you don’t want to be scanned, use a different mode of travel!
If you don’t want to “patted down “, use a different mode of travel!
If the mode of travel you want to use doesn’t go where you want to go, don’t go!
Your rights are clear to me, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT GO; end of story!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You all have a nice day, I will!

Although you think there's little risk, I've heard from radiologist buddies at UCSF & Santa Clara Valley that the low dose all gets absorbed in the skin and increases risk disproportionally for skin cancer over time. I will be asking for a pat down since i fly every few weeks.

To us that fly several times a week, this seems needless radiation. People are still able to walk with loaded guns and live ammo through security. Just today live ammo was found on a Southwest airline flight. I refuse full body scans always!
http://gawker.com/5697932/the-tsa-in-action-loaded-gun-magazine-found-on-plane

I read your comments and believe what you say is true. However, I don't think you said enough. Some forms of radiation such as Alpha, is fairly safe unless ingested or enters your body through an open wound and is not absorbed by the body; the type of radiation used in these scanners penetrates clothing , is likely absorbed by the skin, and may also enter your body through open wounds. Each person has different circumstances and some of us may not want to subject ourselves to radiation that can penetrate or be absorbed by our skin for various reasons. Your comments are general in nature and does not discuss persons have an increased risks when scanned at an airport.

I am a survivor of a stage 3 melanoma and two surgical procedures to make sure they got it all and have had about 50 other incisions to remove less life threatening forms of skin cancer. I wear sun block and UV protective clothing. Why would I want the radiation from airport scanners to be absorbed by my skin - the biggest body organ? I don't.
I rather stand nude is full view of all passengers and be subjected to a cavity search than be exposed to anymore radiation.

I, like thousands of other Americans, served my country in a time of war and have held security clearance since 1967. If the pilots and crew are now exempt from the scans, I submit many other American's deserve equal treatment and un-scanned leaders should ask passengers to submit to background checks, like I do every 5 years, and be given a different boarding pass. Certainly the background investigations for routine passengers cannot cost as much as we are paying L-3 corp. to develop and manufacture the airport scanners.

Will I keep flying? Yes, it’s part of my job and I must fly to see my son and his family. Do I blame TSA scanners? No, they are executing their work responsibilities to stay employed. Civil liberties are a bunch of bull. Our administrations rather violate everyone’s civil liberties than the few that are likely to be terrorist.

We profile every day of the week. A store gets robbed by a white male, blond hair, wearing a red shirt and tan pants. Guess who the police are profiling. The KKK is believed to have burned a cross on a church lawn. The police are not looking for a black person. A while male is wondering around a black neighborhood. The police believe the white male is looking to score a drug buy. The police actually told us that is Washington D.C. when we opened an office in the S.E.

Great inputGone to the dogs ...I was also hearing yesterday about the infection part as the TSA agents do not change their gloves after pat downs, so lice, ringworm, and other infections may be passed on from the touching of many persons skin, from the pics on TV I have seen they do touch passengers around the waistline and sometimes below it .

I, too, am living with breast cancer--4th stage. Is the cancer in my bones that shows up on PET scans and MRIs also going to show up on these airport scanners? Aside from that, I really do not believe that anyone has the right to intrude into my personal, internal body space in the patois of security. Israel is far more effective in deterring potential terrorist situations and to my knowledge, they do not use body scanners. So, my question comes from my only conclusion, who is making money on all this?

It is a deliberate,willful , humiliation of America , there is no reason why we cannot do the same as Israel does except this administration doesnt want us to and as you say who is making money out of this?

I have wondered as well why more tactics like those used in Isreal are not adopted. I saw an interview with members of Homeland Security and they answered that question. App. 2 million people pass through US airports every year. That is one (if not the) highest number of people in the world..significantly greater then the volume in Isreal. So, they said it wouldn't work. Makes sense I guess.

I will admit I am not crazy about the idea of scanners and pat downs, but I still will take them any day of the week over some lunatic getting a bomb or gun on board. I am more concerned with the fact that not everyone is subject. To me, that leaves to much room for something or someone to get through. These guys don't care a whole lot if they get caught...after all they are already prepared to die for their "cause". So I don't think knowing that they might get caught ahead of time is much of a deterrent. I would like to see everyone pass through the scanner. I also think a bit of sensitivity training is in order to treat those that for a variety of reasons prefer or require pat down's instead appropriately.

I travel a lot for my job: I have never had any pat down. My carry-on is often searched because I currently travel with my breast-feeding pump and that intrigues more than one TSA guy, but no pat down. It's not as bad as pictured by the media and others. Plus you are not required to go through the special scanners, that makes them quite useless as you can simply stand in line to go through a regular scanner - I recently purposedly avoiding one and nothing happened to me, the TSA agent looked at me with a bored eye.

I think it's a good thing that the TSA is starting to be more proactive, it's still not enough though. I recently traveled with a knife in my purse - I had completely forgotten about it: it was not found and I realized I had it hours after landing.

sorry about above comment, I have seen in the News that they are doing private pat downs if requested , muslims have been offered it so one assumes it will be open to all of us so we can go to a private room instead of being patted down in the public domain...

Sweatshirts: More than once, wearing a baggy sweatshirt, I've had a pat-down, along with a scanner. This is a great article to think about .. a pat-down isn't that bad, and it's probably safer than the radiation.

It's common knowledge that Airports can have pretty invasive searches, and well they are done for everyone's safety, yours included, why I feel for the people who might of had a masectomy, can you blame the governments being so hard core with it these days? Just think of the people who have tried smuggling explosives in even baby bottles. What's to stop some idiot trying it with a breast prosthetic. But long story short,even before 9/11 people were subject to full body and cavity searches if Security deemed it necessary so it's not like people don't know that if you're gonna fly, especially internationally, you have to expect at worse, a finger in your butthole. Sure I think most of it is over the top paranoia and I guess Osama won and got Americans the way he wanted them to be, Scared of everything.

Solution? Don't be naive or don't fly or lobby your government for change and say "9/11 was bad ok, but it's going to far now"

ALWAYS OPT-OUT. Remember low intensity radiation is completely absorbed by skin. I fly every week and find opting out is the way to go for me. As for safety, airport security is just to make white people feel safe. As we ALL know that people have been able to get on board with guns (http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-23/us/airport.gun_1_airport-security-transportation-security-officers-screener?_s=PM:US), bullets (http://tonygatto.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/fully-loaded-gun-magazine-and-ammunition-found-on-southwest-flight/) and pretty much anything else you want (someone got pulled out a 6-inch knife to cut something while sitting next to me onboard a flight departing VA).

Just remember the next time you board a train, bus or other means, no one has gone through security, yet you will reach your destination safely! I'd fly with no airport security in a heartbeat... I in 20 million planes WILL crash anyway (a risk we all accept)! Why put our health at risk for no GOOD reason.

I find this article by the good Doctor fascinating, as it was a link from elsewhere on this site - on the cancer dangers of years of low level radio wave radiation from cell phones being classified the same as lead and DDT! So we shouldn't worry about being exposed to low levels of x-rays (and millimeter waves, whatever they are) but we should worry about radio waves? Having worked in the Nuclear industry for years, I can tell you that x-rays are ionizing radiation, which will cause cellular damage, at any level. Radio waves are not, yet you should worry about them, not x-rays? And when I was working at nuke plants, we were required by law to track every radiation exposure, no matter how little. And different parts of the body had different exposure limits, depending on the radiation type as well. Skin had a lower limit than the rest of the body, and eyes had the lowest exposure limit of any part of the body, including reproductive organs.

The one time I went through one of these scanners, I had to take my wallet out of my pants, because the scanner couldn't "see" through it! What good is a security device that can be defeated by the thickness of a wallet??

I would avoid these scanners like the plague, as they have no idea of the long term impact on skin and eyes, the machines don't appear to have calibration documentation, and they are operated by non-technicians who wouldn't know if one malfunctioned.

If you would be so kind to help me
figure.......... annual cumlative dose exposure to worker from patients with 30mic. of Tc99m....30 min after being injected....body to body with them....for 30 min .....20 patients/week..
Thanking u in advance.
Bekilane

The Content on this Site is presented in a summary fashion, and is intended to be used for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be and should not be interpreted as medical advice or a diagnosis of any health or fitness problem, condition or disease; or a recommendation for a specific test, doctor, care provider, procedure, treatment plan, product, or course of action. MedHelp is not a medical or healthcare provider and your use of this Site does not create a doctor / patient relationship. We disclaim all responsibility for the professional qualifications and licensing of, and services provided by, any physician or other health providers posting on or otherwise referred to on this Site and/or any Third Party Site. Never disregard the medical advice of your physician or health professional, or delay in seeking such advice, because of something you read on this Site. We offer this Site AS IS and without any warranties. By using this Site you agree to the following Terms and Conditions. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your physician or 911 immediately.